During the past three years, Matteson Consulting Group has had the pleasure of doing extensive work for 5 major pharmaceutical companies. Since we spent our formative years with big pharma (ten years for Suzanne with Ciba-Geigy (remember them) and fifteen years for Dan with Bristol-Myers Squibb), this opportunity to utilize and expand our industry knowledge has been extremely gratifying. We cannot thank you enough for giving us the opportunity to work with individuals in whom your organization has invested so much.

Our engagements have included executive coaching, 360-degree feedback, teambuilding, conflict resolution and leadership development and training. We have worked with over 500 individuals in R&D, most of whom have Ph.D.'s, and typically in situations where we get to know the individual on a "one-on-one" basis. We thought it appropriate, at this time, to capture our thoughts and key learnings from these various situations and to share our observations with you. Although all of the observations may not hold true for your organization, we are confident that you will recognize many of the themes.

Key Learnings and Observations

Passion and Looking at Things Objectively

• With many scientists, there is "good news" and there is "bad news". The good news is that "they are passionate about their work". The bad news is that "they are passionate about their work". The internal gyroscope that drives them so hard to work in a very demanding profession is the same gyroscope that makes it more difficult for them to see things with perfect objectivity. This plays out in the following ways:

• It can be difficult to see our own behaviors objectively. Although we judge ourselves by our intentions, we judge others by their behaviors. It is important to understand how others perceive us and we must adjust our style according to who's involved and what the situation is. (See Impact & Influence Skills.)
• Secondly, one's passion has an impact on how priorities are set. We need to appreciate that the way we value something may be inconsistent with how the organization values it.
• Thirdly, getting people to move on from "killed" projects can be difficult. Oftentimes, the death of a project is viewed solely as a negative rather than an opportunity to gain from the research that was done and free up resources for more productive avenues. One's thought process needs to be redirected to:

• What was learned on this project?
• How can those learnings be applied to other projects to increase their likelihood of success?
• What might the criteria be for resuscitating this project? Etc.

• Scientists grew up in a world where IQ was paramount. We help them to understand that their scientific intelligence got them hired originally as Associates. But it is their EQ (Emotional Intelligence/Interpersonal Skills/Political Savvy, etc.) that will be the ultimate determinant of their impact and influence (and their success) within an organization. (Once again, see Impact & Influence Skills.)

• When it comes to having their work assessed, scientists will occasionally fall back on the statement, "We can't be measured…we're doing Basic Research." The problem is that there is a grain of truth to that. (In some ways, it's also similar to good management practices!) The bigger problem is that it can become an over-arching catchall for "let me do what I want to do". (So, although the scientist is indeed "working", what he or she is working on is "learning stuff that's interesting to them" rather than working on items that "bring value and tangible benefits" to the organization.) Just like good management practices, although some things "can't be measured", there are nevertheless things "that can be identified". The goal is to redirect the scientist to focus on those behaviors, activities and initiatives that can be "identified as providing value to the organization".

• Dealing with change is difficult for many. The application of Bridges' "4 P's of Leading Change" can be particularly fruitful. Key elements of the model are:

• What is the Purpose of the change? (I.E., why are we doing something different?)
• What is the Picture of the future? (I.E., what will the new approach or process look like?)
• What is our Plan for implementing the change? (I.E., how will we get to where we want to be?)
• What is my Part in the new process or project? (I.E., what role will I play?)

Impact & Influence Skills

• Many individuals have an unshakeable belief in "my work should speak for itself". But "only people speak" and, therefore, it is important at times, to "sell our work". It's all about impact and influence skills and not assuming that our work "will be heard above the clatter". One must meet with their customers and find out what they value in our work, what they would like to see more of, what they would like to see done differently, etc. Otherwise, one runs the risk of doing work that he or she finds interesting but no one else in the organization even knows that it exists.

• When it comes to suggestions about leadership competencies or behavioral change, one has to be very pragmatic. Whatever is suggested must have a clear, direct and beneficial outcome. Otherwise, people won't see the need to do it or will not be willing to invest the time and effort in doing it.

• Many individuals have contact with the same people every day of the week. Yet, Internal Networking within one's organization is critical to have a broader view of the department's and the company's work and priorities. We encourage people to network internally by giving them a measurable target and by helping them through the initial discomfort of getting started.

• Most people are not natural negotiators. Oftentimes, we don't put ourselves "in the other person's shoes" and try to understand the other party's "underlying interests". By doing so, this would help to devise mutually beneficial options so that people can work collaboratively.

• When making presentations, the presenter sometimes gets pulled into an "attack - defend - attack - defend" downward spiral. A good way to avoid this is to implement a model such as "Acknowledge - Understand - Evaluate".

• The first step is to acknowledge the comment or question.
• The second step is to understand the comment or question fully before responding. "Understanding" represents a process of diagnostic interviewing by asking facilitative questions to ensure that one understands the context of the question, the assumptions that were made, the speaker's "burning issue", etc. To respond without knowing the critical information is to respond prematurely.
• Once the presenter is clear as to what the other person truly means, that's when the presenter should "evaluate" the comment and respond.

Models, Formulas and Language

• Scientists like "models". When making suggestions, present them as a 3 or 4-Step Model. This shows the linkages amongst the steps and makes it easier to remember.

• When attempting to influence anyone, use "his or her language" whenever appropriate. With scientists, words like "recalibrate", "validate" and "titrate" can be substituted for more common words. On the surface, this may seem like a small issue. But, it's "mission critical" that you view other people's world in their terms.

• Sometimes, when scientists want to learn management and leadership skills, they may try to memorize "the formula" for how to do it. Rarely does one formula fit all circumstances. Present recommendations on interpersonal issues as "guidelines" and "hypotheses" rather than "rules" and "formulas".

It was actually great fun (and great learning) for us to put the above together. We'd love to hear your thoughts, comments and war stories.

All the best,

Suzanne and Dan